Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2019 (12) TMI 897

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of the Assessee with regard to redemption fine and penalty imposed on the Shipping Bills for export of "Cow Crunch Upper Finished Leather" made by the Assessee under the Shipping Bills No.3969869, 3969871 & 3963901 in question. 2.The reasons assigned by the Tribunal in the impugned order are quoted below for ready reference: "5. The samples of the leather are required to be sent to the CLRI as per the requirement of DGFT Public Notice dated 27.5.1992. We find that this is a detail Public Notice running into around 28 pages. The Public Notice has given description of types of leathers, manufacturing norms, conditions and the requirements to be tested. For example, in respect of "protective coat", we find as per Note 2, "the protective co .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... have not drawn samples in the presence of all stake holders. In any case, it appears that they have been sent to CLRI after the earlier consignments have been allowed to be exported albeit on redemption fine etc. In the circumstances, when the appellant themselves are placing absolute reliance on CLRI report, in respect of sample sent by them, they cannot then make aspersions at reports of CLRI on samples sent by the department. 5.3 The appellant has filed Miscellaneous Application Nos. C/Misc./40163, 40165 and 40167/2013 requesting to send the samples for retesting. After a lapse of more than a decade we do not think that such testing would serve any purpose. The remnant samples may well have been disposed of by CLRI after a prescribed t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ty Upper Leather (Crunch) Colour. OLIVE (VI) (1) (E), whereas the Assessee on export has mentioned in the Invoice as "Cow Crunch Upper Leather". He submitted that if the export was "Finished Leather", then the duty was not leviable under the provisions of the Customs Act, whereas if the goods on export were found to be 'not Finished Leather', levy of duty was attracted. He submitted that the Assessee himself obtained a Report from the same CLRI vide Report dated 22.10.2009 which satisfied the criteria of "Finished Leather" and description of goods in the said report dated 22.10.2009 were shown to be "Cow Lining Leather Colour. OLIVE (KISSEL) (IV)(1)". He further submitted that the basis of the report of the CLRI obtained by the appe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... es were taken from the confiscated goods of the appellant/Assessee only in accordance with the Rules and were sent to CLRI for investigation and giving the Report, whereas the Report obtained by the Assessee itself was of the sample taken by Assessee itself without following the Rules and therefore, the Report dated 22.10.2009 obtained by the Assessee, which satisfied the test of its being "Finished Leather" for the sample "Cow Lining Leather Colour: OLIVE (KISSEL) (IV)(1)" could not be a ground for holding a retest after a long period of about a decade and therefore, the rejection of the said prayer of the Assessee by the learned Tribunal was justified. She submitted that the learned Tribunal has observed in the impugned order that on the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... long period, particularly where the description of the goods in the second report obtained by the Assessee itself is also different. These three different descriptions of the goods does not render the evidence relied upon by the Revenue viz., CLRI report dated 16.10.2009, non-est or unreliable. 7.We do not find any force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the Assessee that on the basis of the report adduced by the Assessee before the Tribunal vide dated 22.10.2009, though obtained shortly after the report dated 16.10.2009, the Tribunal was required to direct a retest. Obviously the sample goods sent by the Assessee for testing was not from the lot of the goods exported or goods confiscated by the Revenue in question. There .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates